For skeptics who refuse to believe randomly-sourced bar-graphs of the GeForce GTX 680 that are starved of pictures, here is the first set of benchmarks run by a third-party (neither NVIDIA nor one of its AIC partners). This [p]reviewer from HKEPC has pictures to back his benchmarks. The GeForce GTX 680 was pitted against a Radeon HD 7970, and a previous-generation GeForce GTX 580. The test-bed consisted of an extreme-cooled Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition processor (running at stock frequency), ASUS Rampage IV Extreme motherboard, 8 GB (4x 2 GB) GeIL EVO 2 DDR3-2200 MHz quad-channel memory, Corsair AX1200W PSU, and Windows 7 x64.

Benchmarks included 3DMark 11 (performance preset), Battlefield 3, Batman: Arkham City, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Lost Planet 2, and Unigine Heaven (version not mentioned, could be 1). All tests were run at a constant resolution of 1920x1080, with 8x MSAA on some tests (mentioned in the graphs).

Will be getting a 7950 and clocking it if the 680 clocks like a Mellon. For a 1000 core GPU it is certainly not embarrassing the 7970.

And looking at its specs Nvidia are taking us all for a ride pricing this at or above 7970 prices. It's obvious this a mid-high range part boosted to an high end part through high clocks and the fact it competes with the 7970.

7700 3dmark11 points is kind of low for an HD7970 since mine get 8100 stock, 8400 oc and 9100 at max OC (with an i7 930)

That still puts the stock GTX680 above the HD7970 oc'ed. The defeat of AMD clearly depends on the overclocking ability of the GTX680 and the future drivers AMD can release to catch-up, if thats possible.

Will be getting a 7950 and clocking it if the 680 clocks like a Mellon. For a 1000 core GPU it is certainly not embarrassing the 7970.

And looking at its specs Nvidia are taking us all for a ride pricing this at or above 7970 prices. It's obvious this a mid-high range part boosted to an high end part through high clocks and the fact it competes with the 7970.

Click to expand...

Are you new to PC gaming, because nVIDIA cards are ALWAYS priced higher, because they are 9 times out of 10, the higher performing card, and because no one does desktop and workstation GPU's better than nVIDIA, for as long as nVIDIA has been doing it. Or have you not noticed... somehow?

A midrange card "boosted" to compete with AMD's flagship and you're complaining?!, or just mad? Either way, stay off the crack!

With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other.

Click to expand...

You're in one of the bottom two tiers, Jurassic.

The main issue with a clock for clock comparison is that, as others have suggested, we do not know that the two architectures will have comparable maximum stable frequencies or comparable thermal efficiency.

With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other.

Click to expand...

troll face, new account and probably a returnee previously banned, GTFO of the thread if you're just game insult other members and act like a complete dick.

You like to be taken up the ass by inflated GPU prices that's fine, you're a sucker and a gimp. This 256 bit, 2GB 680 is nowhere near a $500+ card regardless of performance which by the way sucks if there is not much overclocking headroom left.

The main issue with a clock for clock comparison is that, as others have suggested, we do not know that the two architectures will have comparable maximum stable frequencies or comparable thermal efficiency.

I really hope it ends up faster than AMD's offerings. Can't wait for the actual reviews and the thing to reach stores in the real world so we can have some competition at last. Then I'll either end up getting a 7950 or just skip this pricey generation altogether.